Ron Paul blows a gasket over questions on race statements, storms out of CNN show

Ron Paul storms out of CNN interview after questions on race statements

Watch video of Ron Paul’s CNN interview at the bottom of this post.

When you’re running for president — or even just for your party’s presidential nomination — it’s generally not good idea to storm out of interviews on a national cable channel because you don’t like the question.

So maybe it was a mistake for Ron Paul to take umbrage with the badgering he was getting on CNN about racist newsletters that were published under his name 20 years ago. Under cross-examination by CNN’s Gloria Borger, Paul got increasingly upset at the questioning and finally unclipped his microphone and left. Bad idea, because the storm-out is sure to get more attention than the original interview would have. And that in turn will attract more attention to the newsletters, which Paul has been trying to explain away for a decade or more.

The Atlantic reports some of the “choicest” statements in the newsletters, which were published with various titles but all credited to Paul, who reportedly made a healthy profit from the business:

“Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

“We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.”

After the Los Angeles riots, one article in a newsletter claimed, “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.”

One referred to Martin Luther King Jr. as “the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours” and who “seduced underage girls and boys.”

Another referred to Barbara Jordan, a civil rights activist and congresswoman as “Barbara Morondon,” the “archetypical half-educated victimologist.”

Paul has offered various explanations for the statements: he didn’t write them, he wasn’t aware of them, he doesn’t agree with them, and (the weakest argument) they were taken out of context. Also, he says, he’s been questioned about them for years and answered the questions over and over. So why won’t the media give it a rest?

Well, because they won’t. The Atlantic actually offers a thoughtful analysis of the situation, including the suggestion that Paul, as a fierce libertarian, believes in letting people say and do what they want. So if some fringe fruitcake turned up in his political camp he’d likely let them rant away, even if he strongly disapproved of their message. It also suggests Paul supporters may have tried the racist card without his approval to see if it drew any support, then abandoned it when it failed.

Whatever. The point (which so few candidates seem to grasp) is that once you throw your name into the ring for an elected position, your entire life becomes fair game for dissection. And you will have to answer the same questions, over and over, no matter how often they are raised, until every individual reporter in the MSM and beyond is personally satisfied with your explanation.